-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 59
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add CONFIDENCE_BASIS link for CLM #368
Add CONFIDENCE_BASIS link for CLM #368
Conversation
Diff of YAML and JSON
|
Setting to draft per #323 (comment) |
@@ -84,6 +84,12 @@ __Legal targets:__ [EiffelConfidenceLevelModifiedEvent](../eiffel-vocabulary/Eif | |||
__Multiple allowed:__ Yes | |||
__Description:__ Used in events summarizing multiple confidence levels. Example use case: the confidence level "allTestsOk" summarizes the confidence levels "unitTestsOk, "scenarioTestsOk" and "deploymentTestsOk", and consequently links to them via __SUB_CONFIDENCE_LEVEL__. This is intended for purely descriptive, rather than prescriptive, use. | |||
|
|||
### CONFIDENCE_BASIS | |||
__Required:__ No | |||
__Legal targets:__ [EiffelTestCaseTriggeredEvent](../eiffel-vocabulary/EiffelTestCaseTriggeredEvent.md), [EiffelTestSuiteStartedEvent](../eiffel-vocabulary/EiffelTestSuiteStartedEvent.md) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Shouldn't we base our confidence on the actual results of the test case and/or test suite instead? I.e. Shouldn't legal targets be TestCaseFinished and TestSuiteFinished?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'll take that question with me when we discuss the PR.
I have assumed that we always should point to the triggered event but let's hear what the others think.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What does "when we discuss the PR" mean? Will you bring it to a community meeting? If so, when? :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We will discuss this on the 31 of August during the community meeting.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@t-persson In f3af483 I have changed to link to the finished events instead.
Outcome from community meeting on Aug 31:
|
* Changed the valid link to the finished events * Added CLM as valid link type * Added future deprication note for SUB_CONFIDENCE_LEVEL Signed-off-by: Mattias Linnér <mattias.linner@ericsson.com>
CONFIDENCE_BASIS: | ||
description: 'Used to declare the basis for which confidence statement(s) this event have used. | ||
The __CAUSE__ link tells what caused the event sending whereas __CONFIDENCE_BASIS__ declares the reason for | ||
selecting the provided `data.name` and/or `data.value`.' | ||
required: false | ||
multiple: true | ||
targets: | ||
any_type: false | ||
types: | ||
- EiffelConfidenceLevelModifiedEvent | ||
- EiffelTestCaseFinishedEvent | ||
- EiffelTestSuiteFinishedEvent |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry for noticing this only now, but would you mind moving up this link type so that they're in alphabetical order? I suspect we're sorting them when the Markdown is rendered but having them alphabetical in the source file would make things more navigable.
Also, we generally use __fieldname__
to reference other field names, not backticks. Compare output of git grep '<backtick>data\.' -- definitions
with git grep '__data\.' -- definitions
(replace with an actual backtick obviously; I couldn't get the formatting right here).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No we don't sort it as far as I could see but both issues are fixed in ebf4416
Applicable Issues
Fixes #323
Description of the Change
Added a CONFIDENCE_BASIS link with inspiration from IVs VERIFICATION_BASIS
Alternate Designs
N/A
Benefits
The user of Eiffel can now express in what CONTEXT they send the
CLM
event but also what basis they used for compiling the confidence.Possible Drawbacks
None that I can think of
Sign-off
Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1
By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:
(a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
have the right to submit it under the open source license
indicated in the file; or
(b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
license and I have the right under that license to submit that
work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
in the file; or
(c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
it.
(d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
this project or the open source license(s) involved.
Signed-off-by: Mattias Linnér mattias.linner@ericsson.com